Bahamut.Ravael said: »
The evidence is anecdotal at best. If being rational and not jumping to conclusions is a mark against my record, then each mark is a badge of honor.
But I have a jump to conclusion mat !
YouTube Video Placeholder
Random Politics & Religion #00
|
Random Politics & Religion #00
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » New front on social justice: Having a loving family is "unfair". Time to make reading to your kids against the law, cause it gives kids an unfair advantage. How long before this toxic Aussie liberal garbage gets regurgitated over here? How long before they blame it on our disgusting institutional racism? Quote: This devilish twist of evidence surely leads to a further conclusion—that perhaps in the interests of levelling the playing field, bedtime stories should also be restricted. In Swift’s mind this is where the evaluation of familial relationship goods goes up a notch. ‘You have to allow parents to engage in bedtime stories activities, in fact we encourage them because those are the kinds of interactions between parents and children that do indeed foster and produce these [desired] familial relationship goods.’ Swift makes it clear that although both elite schooling and bedtime stories might both skew the family game, restricting the former would not interfere with the creation of the special loving bond that families give rise to. Taking the books away is another story. ‘We could prevent elite private schooling without any real hit to healthy family relationships, whereas if we say that you can’t read bedtime stories to your kids because it’s not fair that some kids get them and others don’t, then that would be too big a hit at the core of family life.’ It does bring up an interesting concept, though. There is this idea that the only way to create equality is to make everyone equally miserable, because it's far easier than making everyone equally happy. Why buoy up the disadvantaged when you can just hack at the knees of the elite?
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Shiva.Onorgul said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » but I think it's safe to say that Portugal isn't exactly the most fitting control group. You do understand the concept of a control group, right? And you do realize that things that work in one country don't work in others? Any factor that differentiates the control group from the rest is a lurking variable, and there are tons in this case. I didn't say it wouldn't work, I just think it's stupid to assume it would just because it worked in a different country. Am I the only one thinking like a scientist here? Look up the freaking scientific method and how experiments are designed. You cannot make generalizations about the outcome of an experiment and extrapolate it to unrelated groups unless they accurately match the control group. GDP, population, religious influences, ethnicity, drug preference, drug availability, healthcare costs (or lack thereof), healthcare quality, media influences, etc. can all play a role. Holy crap, do I need to go on? It isn't all factors that need to accurately match. Only factors which have a been determined to have a statistically significant impact matter. You can also do a comparison for the US, against the US, when looking at the prohibition of alcohol, and crime. In a study of more than 30 major U.S. cities during the Prohibition years of 1920 and 1921, the number of crimes increased by 24%. Additionally, theft and burglaries increased by 9%, homicides by 12.7%, assaults and battery rose by 13%, drug addiction by 44.6%, and police department costs rose by 11.4%. COMMUNISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I see that and play FASCISM in attack mode. I draw two cards and end my turn. Your move.
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » New front on social justice: Having a loving family is "unfair". Time to make reading to your kids against the law, cause it gives kids an unfair advantage. How long before this toxic Aussie liberal garbage gets regurgitated over here? How long before they blame it on our disgusting institutional racism? Quote: This devilish twist of evidence surely leads to a further conclusion—that perhaps in the interests of levelling the playing field, bedtime stories should also be restricted. In Swift’s mind this is where the evaluation of familial relationship goods goes up a notch. ‘You have to allow parents to engage in bedtime stories activities, in fact we encourage them because those are the kinds of interactions between parents and children that do indeed foster and produce these [desired] familial relationship goods.’ Swift makes it clear that although both elite schooling and bedtime stories might both skew the family game, restricting the former would not interfere with the creation of the special loving bond that families give rise to. Taking the books away is another story. ‘We could prevent elite private schooling without any real hit to healthy family relationships, whereas if we say that you can’t read bedtime stories to your kids because it’s not fair that some kids get them and others don’t, then that would be too big a hit at the core of family life.’ It does bring up an interesting concept, though. There is this idea that the only way to create equality is to make everyone equally miserable, because it's far easier than making everyone equally happy. Why buoy up the disadvantaged when you can just hack at the knees of the elite? At least you can take comfort in those rich fat cats aren't rich anymore ! Bahamut.Milamber said: » It isn't all factors that need to accurately match. Only factors which have a been determined to have a statistically significant impact matter. You can also do a comparison for the US, against the US, when looking at the prohibition of alcohol, and crime. Yes, and how does one determine that is has a statistically significant impact? Oh yeah, you'd have to actually do a statistical analysis on every single factor. Also, alcohol isn't the same as hard drugs. You guys are getting way too defensive over someone being reasonably skeptical, frick. I'm sorry I don't align myself with your views 100% without undeniable proof. Sheesh.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » It isn't all factors that need to accurately match. Only factors which have a been determined to have a statistically significant impact matter. You can also do a comparison for the US, against the US, when looking at the prohibition of alcohol, and crime. Yes, and how does one determine that is has a statistically significant impact? Oh yeah, you'd have to actually do a statistical analysis on every single factor. Also, alcohol isn't the same as hard drugs. You guys are getting way too defensive over someone being reasonably skeptical, frick. I'm sorry I don't align myself with your views 100% without undeniable proof. Sheesh. Bahamut.Ravael said: » but I think it's safe to say that Portugal isn't exactly the most fitting control group. You've, by the way, not answered that question. Merely said factors need to be examined. Edited in exact wording I'm so defensive I can't even finish this sent...
I bet we would have defensive arguments about how to describe the taste of water !
Isn't Portugal somewhere around 25% unemployment and stuff.
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Also, alcohol isn't the same as hard drugs.
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Isn't Portugal somewhere around 25% unemployment and stuff. If only I cared enough to wikipedia it ! But I don't think their economic situation is good... Here is the drug policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Laws_and_regulations Amount limits of possession for personal consumption are:[22] 25 g Cannabis (herb) 5 g Hashish 2.5 g Cannabis Oil 0.5 g Pure THC 500 µg LSD 1 g MDMA 2 g Cocaine (Hydrochloride) 0.3 g Cocaine (Benzoylecgonine) 1 g Heroin 1 g Methadone 2 g Morphine 10 g Opium 1 g Amphetamine 0.1 g PCP Ah their unemployment is only ~13.5% it's their 132.62% debt to GDP ratio that's about to crush them.
As a side note I see the U.S. is back to over 100% debt to GDP again. For a month almost they had it down to 98-99%. Back up to 104.77% now. Don't worry some other country will bail out Portugal !
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Quote: Swift in particular has been conflicted for some time over the curious situation that arises when a parent wants to do the best for her child but in the process makes the playing field for others even more lopsided. ‘I got interested in this question because I was interested in equality of opportunity,’ he says. ‘I had done some work on social mobility and the evidence is overwhelmingly that the reason why children born to different families have very different chances in life is because of what happens in those families.’ Quote: The power of the family to tilt equality hasn’t gone unnoticed, and academics and public commentators have been blowing the whistle for some time. Now, philosophers Adam Swift and Harry Brighouse have felt compelled to conduct a cool reassessment. Swift in particular has been conflicted for some time over the curious situation that arises when a parent wants to do the best for her child but in the process makes the playing field for others even more lopsided. ‘I got interested in this question because I was interested in equality of opportunity,’ he says. ‘I had done some work on social mobility and the evidence is overwhelmingly that the reason why children born to different families have very different chances in life is because of what happens in those families.’ Once he got thinking, Swift could see that the issue stretches well beyond the fact that some families can afford private schooling, nannies, tutors, and houses in good suburbs. Functional family interactions—from going to the cricket to reading bedtime stories—form a largely unseen but palpable fault line between families. The consequence is a gap in social mobility and equality that can last for generations. Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Quote: In the end Swift agrees that all activities will cause some sort of imbalance—from joining faith communities to playing Saturday cricket—and it’s for this reason that a theory of familial goods needs to be established if the family is to be defended against cries of unfairness. ‘We should accept that lots of stuff that goes on in healthy families—and that our theory defends—will confer unfair advantage,’ he says. Quote: In the end Swift agrees that all activities will cause some sort of imbalance—from joining faith communities to playing Saturday cricket—and it’s for this reason that a theory of familial goods needs to be established if the family is to be defended against cries of unfairness. ‘We should accept that lots of stuff that goes on in healthy families—and that our theory defends—will confer unfair advantage,’ he says. It’s the usual bind in ethics and moral philosophy: very often values clash and you have to make a call. For Swift and Brighouse, the line sits shy of private schooling, inheritance and other predominantly economic ways of conferring advantage. Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Quote: Then, does the child have a right to be parented by her biological parents? Swift has a ready answer. ‘It’s true that in the societies in which we live, biological origins do tend to form an important part of people’s identities, but that is largely a social and cultural construction. So you could imagine societies in which the parent-child relationship could go really well even without there being this biological link.’ Quote: ‘When we talk about parents’ rights, we’re talking about the person who is parenting the child. How you got to be parenting the child is another issue. One implication of our theory is that it’s not one’s biological relation that does much work in justifying your rights with respect to how the child is parented.’ For Swift and Brighouse, our society is curiously stuck in a time warp of proprietorial rights: if you biologically produce a child you own it. ‘We think that although in practice it makes sense to parent your biological offspring, that is not the same as saying that in virtue of having produced the child the biological parent has the right to parent.’ Then, does the child have a right to be parented by her biological parents? Swift has a ready answer. ‘It’s true that in the societies in which we live, biological origins do tend to form an important part of people’s identities, but that is largely a social and cultural construction. So you could imagine societies in which the parent-child relationship could go really well even without there being this biological link.’ From this realisation arises another twist: two is not the only number. ‘Nothing in our theory assumes two parents: there might be two, there might be three, and there might be four,’ says Swift. It’s here that the traditional notions of what constitutes the family come apart. A necessary product of the Swift and Brighouse analytical defence is the calling into question of some rigid definitions. ‘Politicians love to talk about family values, but meanwhile the family is in flux and so we wanted to go back to philosophical basics to work out what are families for and what’s so great about them and then we can start to figure out whether it matters whether you have two parents or three or one, or whether they’re heterosexual etcetera.’ For traditionalists, though, Swift provides a small concession. ‘We do want to defend the family against complete fragmentation and dissolution,’ he says. ‘If you start to think about a child having 10 parents, then that’s looking like a committee rearing a child; there aren’t any parents there at all.’ Bahamut.Ravael said: » fonewear said: » I bet we would have defensive arguments about how to describe the taste of water !
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » He's speaking from an use/addiction standpoint. I would have thought that was clear. And if you think quitting drinking for a heavy alcoholic is any easier than other drugs, you're lucky that you're not familiar enough with anyone who's tried.
[+]
Shiva.Onorgul said: » I keep asking for you to explain yourself and you activate Really Imperfect Dodge. Ok... I think he was going more for a "past performance is no guarantee of future outcome" type deal. something that works in colorado could completely fail in ohio because banana. then the two sides of the argument are "Then let's try it and find out" vs. "Let's not and say we did" Bahamut.Ravael said: »
[+]
Bahamut.Kara said: » False convictions occur on a much larger scale than .2%. The government does not keep track of those who are pardoned. There was a topic a few years ago that discussed this. Some information p.6 The criminal infrastructure that was created during prohibition versus the drug war are also very similar. Along with the increase in prison population and tax burdan on citizens.
Shiva.Nikolce said: » something that works in colorado could completely fail in ohio because banana. Ohio, Gateway to Midwest Depression! Truth be told it might be an excellent place to test things out. On state scale Ohio has got to rival Portugal's unemployment/depression numbers, right? So addiction numbers should be about the same... Asura.Kingnobody said: » population of over 8 million prisoners Going to go ahead and say again that this number is needlessly high, re-asserting that if we were more serious about rehab (drug, alcohol, and vocational, with proper psychological care thrown into the mix) we'd be a lot better off in a lot of ways. As currently constituted, prison rehab programs are overbooked and provided in a quite slipshod fashion. I am of the opinion that the people that think incarcerating innocent people is ok because it's at an "acceptable" percentage or whatever they are trying to argue should be the ones that are convicted of a crime that they did not commit and let them see how they feel about it then.
[+]
I went to county jail for the weekend for just reasons about 10 years ago, & all I could think about was getting those poor *** some decent food when I was let loose on the world once again, but then I got out, & you know, you get busy & such.
the food is terrible in there.
[+]
Seraph.Ramyrez said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » population of over 8 million prisoners Going to go ahead and say again that this number is needlessly high, re-asserting that if we were more serious about rehab (drug, alcohol, and vocational, with proper psychological care thrown into the mix) we'd be a lot better off in a lot of ways. As currently constituted, prison rehab programs are overbooked and provided in a quite slipshod fashion. You know, make it harsher for people so they can think twice (or in some cases, three or more times) before committing a crime knowingly. Lakshmi.Flavin said: » I am of the opinion that the people that think incarcerating innocent people is ok because it's at an "acceptable" percentage or whatever they are trying to argue should be the ones that are convicted of a crim that they did not commit and let them see how they feel about it then. But you know what, I rather live with less than 1/25th of a percent rate of error than whatever you think the rate of error is in your mind. Speaking of which, I did ask you what the rate of error is, but you refused to state it. I'm guessing it's more like 10-20%... |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.